turning toward the context in 20thC
gaynorgallagher
special genius of our century to investigate things in relation to their
context, to come to see the context as formative on the thing, and, finally,
to see the context as a thing itself".
this quote is about art and how, at an important time for modernism, the
context consumes the object.
I understand what this statement implies for art but I would like to
investigate what it implies for thinking in the 20thC in general (not for my
essay just for my soul)
gaynor
Dirk Nachbar
things appear in a different light if you take a different perspective. i
don't know if it is typical for the 20th century, there are still many
people blind to see the headline of a typical project.
"gaynorgallagher" <gaynorg...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:o%ce8.24247$766.6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
James Whitehead
gaynorgallagher <gaynorg...@hotmail.com> writes
>in my research for an art essay, I came across this quote "It has been the
>special genius of our century to investigate things in relation to their
>context, to come to see the context as formative on the thing, and, finally,
>to see the context as a thing itself".
Ok so i suppose we mean the gallery space as giving the context - or
being the context for art. That is the institution which previously was
the container/broadcaster of the object becomes the "originator"
Kind of thing which happens on newsnight with jeremy paxman?
>this quote is about art and how, at an important time for modernism, the
>context consumes the object.
>I understand what this statement implies for art but I would like to
>investigate what it implies for thinking in the 20thC in general (not for my
>essay just for my soul)
As far a philosophy would the slide into the focus on language be a
candidate? Both in the Anglo/German and Continental varieties.
Structuralism et al. where the structures (sic) are important, the
impact of linguistics and semiotics. So rather books on theology we see
books on the language of theology. Both Wittgenstein - in Investigations
and Derrida elsewhere seem to plough into the stuff of language. What we
would expect is that the structures of the keepers of theory and the
communicators of it become the originators. Do any modern post/modern
theorists work outside the context of Academia - and is it that context
which now legitimates them.
How far this extends into science is debatable. How should we regard
figures like Stephen Hawking? Lets say the context of science is
mathematics - has the mathematics become an end in itself in physics at
least? Of the sciences in general one could ask are we making any
progress - and in what way is this made apparent generally - outside the
discipline (context).
This account of modernism leaves out what occurs in post modernity -
which recognising this closure dumbs down the whole process. If we have
nothing but the context, then while we perform within it aimlessly -
(having no goal) one might as well have some fun, be amusing, popular
even. Seems to have some examples - Derridas Post Cards ... Baudrillard!
What is the argument about MS suffers and others being able to use
cannabis if not that it might mark the admission of recreational
medicine replacing the previous objectivity of cure.
--
James Whitehead